Friday question answered

Readers not surprisingly differed on the most important story last week. We saw the Israeli prime minister and President Obama meet about Iran and speak at AIPAC; Mitt Romney win six of 10 Super Tuesday races; Obama lobby against the XL pipeline; and the Rush Limbaugh flap unfold, with the left trying to downplay its own misogynist comedian, Bill Maher.

A few readers pointed to the XL Pipeline. Rudyncg wrote:

The Keystone rejection may prove to be the most significant of the week’s actions, but not just for the conventional-wisdom reason of Obama being tone deaf and in denial of his role in rising energy prices. The more important reason, not yet grabbed onto by the pundit class, is that Obama’s supporters have glommed onto the fallacious argument that approving the Keystone pipeline would cause increasing oil prices, using the circular logic that more supply would encourage consumption and export, which would force demand (and thus prices) higher. Secondarily, they are in denial that more supply would place pressure on prices, and contend that more expense developing supply would translate to higher prices. Such is an affront to basic economic literacy and common sense. It also locks Obama into a position inhibiting any supply response that might help him.

StatistQuo agreed: “The one issue, to me, however, which will haunt the President is the XL Pipeline. Anyone who drives, whether they’re buying gas that day or not, sees the price of gasoline daily. It is always before the consumer and the electorate, once prices reach the tipping point. Obama acts as if the Democrats, when they enjoyed their short-lived super majority, repealed the Law of Supply and Demand.”

But many readers focused on Israel and Iran. Ralterb had the most comprehensive argument:

By far the most important issue you mentioned has to do with Iran. The other things you brought up are just the hot topics of the week. Seriously, who is going to care about what Rush Limbaugh says in a month from now? The notion that the entire Republican leadership has to comment on this kerfuffle is just ridiculous.

In contrast, at stake with Iran is the safety and security of the Jewish state, the stability of the Middle East (and oil prices), and the prospect of nuclear terrorism and accompanying destruction on a massive scale. Unfortunately, this president seems more concerned with containing the Israelis and preventing them from defending themselves from imminent annihilation than with countering the fanatical Mullahs. Everything that he says to the contrary is campaign rhetoric that is meant to pacify gullible Jewish Democrats.

While the economy remains uppermost in most voters’ minds and the fuss over Limbaugh has temporarily distracted the media, I agree that Iran could very well take center stage. If Iran announces that it has a nuclear weapons capability, Obama will have presided over the gravest foreign policy fiasco in recent memory. The news would send oil prices soaring, set off an arms race in the Middle East and confirm that Obama’s “lead from behind” strategy was a disaster. And if Israel feels compelled to act, then the administration’s reaction, the impact on the economy and the course of the hostilities will swamp other issues. Then, too, Americans may wonder why the leader of the Free World wasn’t leading and instead shifted the burden to Israel to stave off a grave threat to the West’s security.